A reworked ordinance that would ban aggressive solicitation in Urbana would be good for the city if it works as intended.

A week after emphatically rejecting an ordinance to ban aggressive panhandling in Urbana, the city council now is poised to approve a ban of aggressive solicitation.

The city council will meet Monday to vote on a new law aimed at eliminating the problem of individuals aggressively seeking money from strangers. The ordinance is aimed specifically at the southeast Urbana neighborhood, but it applies citywide.

Alderwoman Diane Marlin said that she is confident the ordinance "gives us the tools we need to deter that kind of behavior" and that she would "like it to pass unanimously."

The pending ordinance is a revised version of an earlier emanation pilloried at the council's July 18 meeting. Opponents portrayed the earlier version as a reflection of societal indifference to the poor and particularly objected to the "no-panhandling zones" the ordinance would have established.

The latest version bars aggressive solicitation, including blocking a person's path or touching another person without his consent. The ordinance also would bar solicitation in groups of two or more and solicitation within 20 feet of an ATM or bank.

While dropping "no-panhandling zones" from the proposal, the ordinance would ban solicitation on private property if the property owner has asked the solicitor to leave or posted a sign prohibiting soliciting. If business owners perceive soliciting on their property to be a problem, this provision will allow them to put an end to it.

With only one exception, Alderwoman Heather Stevenson, council members expressed support for this latest version of the ordinance.

Stevenson, a Republican from Ward 6, said she opposes extending government authority in this manner, perceiving it as a violation of her libertarian philosophy.

Stevenson needs to revisit the issue of libertarianism. It holds that individuals should be allowed to engage in a wide variety of behavior, including drug consumption, as a matter of individual free choice as long as that choice does not have an adverse effect on others.

Aggressive solicitation is being targeted specifically because it can have a negative impact on others, especially older people who are put off or frightened by aggressive requests for money from strangers. Her reliance on libertarianism as an explanation for opposing this ordinance is misplaced.

The debate on the panhandling ordinance has been emotional, much of it driven by perceptions of panhandlers. Are they people in need asking for assistance? Or is there something more ominous behind their behavior?

If it works as intended, the proposed ordinance will have bridged that difference of opinion. So good for members of the city council and, even better, good for the city of Urbana.